To the editor: I am bored with photo voltaic and wind power being referred to as “clear”. The manufacturing and use of each creates a lot of air pollution and environmental harm. (“Biden’s western photo voltaic plan sounds scary. Nevertheless it’s higher than local weather change,” column, February 1)
At greatest, they are often referred to as “carbon free” – which after all is an efficient factor.
It’s attention-grabbing that merely utilizing much less power is rarely mentioned, whilst a partial answer to world warming. And the truth that the fixed progress of the Earth’s human inhabitants should cease in some unspecified time in the future can be a taboo. Does anybody actually consider that fixed inhabitants progress is sustainable?
Economists ought to examine how the human inhabitants will be diminished with out destroying economies. Is it not value severe dialogue as a method to sluggish local weather change or maybe reverse the destruction of the pure world that we now have already inflicted?
Lore Spangler, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: Set up of photo voltaic panels over solely half the size of the approx. The 440-mile California Aqueduct would go a good distance towards serving to our state meet its photo voltaic power targets.
Assuming a 100-foot-wide set up over solely half of the aqueduct, this is able to permit for greater than 100 million sq. toes of photo voltaic panels on already developed infrastructure. These installations will restrict the environmental impression and public opposition to massive installations on undeveloped, delicate public lands.
As well as, the shade supplied by the set up can cut back evaporation losses on its lengthy journey to the tip customers.
Looks like a win-win to me.
Dean L. Pratt, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: We’d like all of the renewable power we will generate from solar, wind and different sources.
A significant battle within the photo voltaic area is the usage of public lands for big photo voltaic farms. These are opposed by many rural communities and conservationists because of the lack of open area and habitat, and but these initiatives are a part of the answer we can’t ignore.
To attenuate opposition to such initiatives, a stability of federal funding {dollars} ought to happen between distant photo voltaic farms and concrete areas (eg, rooftop photo voltaic). A 50-50 break up between the 2 choices might be a spot to start out.
Disturbed oil fields and mine websites ought to all the time be precedence places for photo voltaic installations. This could result in price financial savings by not requiring the restoration of those websites first.
Todd Collart, Ventura